[Stratodog]

ON strafing ships:

AI will only strafe ships if there is a strafable object placed directly on the ship. For instance, if you place a stationary vehicle on the deck of the ship, AI aircraft will attempt to strafe the vehicle and thus will strafe the ship. When the vehicle is destroyed, AI aircraft will move-on to something else, regardless of the condition of the ship. This was the case before the AI mod also.

[Slikk]

@ rockyalexander & Stratodog

I agree that WW2 planes did not use nav lights very much. I guess I

[Metatron]

I like this mod very much. My only criticism is the behavior of the fighter bombers: Carrying bombs turns planes into sitting ducks with this mod. All I can say is I think with very few exceptions, fighter bombers would abort their mission and jettison their bombs if attacked. This is based on most first hand accounts I have read, by no means is this a definitive fact, but just my opinion.

[certificate]

I like this mod very much. My only criticism is the behavior of the fighter bombers: Carrying bombs turns planes into sitting ducks with this mod. All I can say is I think with very few exceptions, fighter bombers would abort their mission and jettison their bombs if attacked. This is based on most first hand accounts I have read, by no means is this a definitive fact, but just my opinion.

I can definitely make that happen.... some people wanted it this way, others want it the way it is right now. If you have some idea of middle ground, I'd be happy to consider it.

[agracier]

This is a good version, rather nicely balanced I'd say.

Enemy AI fighters are no longer raging bulls who charge at you relentlessly or play chicken and then crash head-on. They seem to be a bit more cautious, devious even, waiting and watching until they can spring an attack unexpectedly.

And while I couldn't say for hi altitude dogfights, at lower altitudes i really like the way enemy AI's hit the deck and maneuver close to the ground ...

Enemy AI fighters do have a tendency to break off the fight more often than in previous versions, which at least gives you a chance to run away and fight again ...

[Stratodog]

I like this mod very much. My only criticism is the behavior of the fighter bombers: Carrying bombs turns planes into sitting ducks with this mod. All I can say is I think with very few exceptions, fighter bombers would abort their mission and jettison their bombs if attacked. This is based on most first hand accounts I have read, by no means is this a definitive fact, but just my opinion.

I can definitely make that happen.... some people wanted it this way, others want it the way it is right now. If you have some idea of middle ground, I'd be happy to consider it.

I think the key here would probably have been the presence of other fighters as escort. With such an escort the fighter/bombers could (in theory) continue on their primary mission while the escorts handled the attack. When attacked directly (no escort, or some enemies got through the escort) I would expect the FBs to jettison loads and protect themselves. Possibly this would be difficult behavior to program?

This brings to mind another escort fighter behavior that

[Sturmbock]

First at all I have to said this is one of the best mod for me. Thank you very much certificate.

I am with Stratodog, fighter bombers are sitting ducks. I would expect the FBs to jettison loads and protect themselves.

I don

[Bearcat]

It is certainly better than the stock AI.

[rossmum]

[quote="Metatron"]I like this mod very much. My only criticism is the behavior of the fighter bombers: Carrying bombs turns planes into sitting ducks with this mod. All I can say is I think with very few exceptions, fighter bombers would abort their mission and jettison their bombs if attacked. This is based on most first hand accounts I have read, by no means is this a definitive fact, but just my opinion.

I can definitely make that happen.... some people wanted it this way, others want it the way it is right now. If you have some idea of middle ground, I'd be happy to consider it.

I think the key here would probably have been the presence of other fighters as escort. With such an escort the fighter/bombers could (in theory) continue on their primary mission while the escorts handled the attack. When attacked directly (no escort, or some enemies got through the escort) I would expect the FBs to jettison loads and protect themselves. Possibly this would be difficult behavior to program?

This brings to mind another escort fighter behavior that

[Guest]

I definately agree about the holding onto the bombs. Especially with large bombers. It rediculous watching a beaten up B-17 try to limp home with it's full bomb load. Sure, probably not correct for them to drop at first sign of trouble, but maybe program for them to release them once they take damage?

[fdelre]

I am a user of this mod since inception thanks for the efforts and congratulation. Please note that the behaviour in mountain/hilly areas is still doubtful. I tried using a mission on netmountains map and majority of the plains crashed on the mountain side or on landing. I was the only mission survivor. Thanks

[certificate]

I am a user of this mod since inception thanks for the efforts and congratulation. Please note that the behaviour in mountain/hilly areas is still doubtful. I tried using a mission on netmountains map and majority of the plains crashed on the mountain side or on landing. I was the only mission survivor. Thanks

Well, hit me with a mission to test, and I'll be happy to adjust it if it's still messed up.

[rockyalexander]

James Swett downed eight Vals in one mission because the Japanese pilots were so rigidly required to hold formation and retain their bombs until they reached their ground target. Swett just flew behind them and picked them off one by one.

[Aviar]

I am a user of this mod since inception thanks for the efforts and congratulation. Please note that the behaviour in mountain/hilly areas is still doubtful. I tried using a mission on netmountains map and majority of the plains crashed on the mountain side or on landing. I was the only mission survivor. Thanks

These kinds of observations, while intending to be helpful, can not only be misleading, they can be totally inaccurate. Please let me elaborate.

Let's take the example in the quote. I don't doubt that the player saw those modded AI planes crashing. However, unless he/she can conduct a controlled test that proves the modded AI planes are crashing while the unmodded AI planes are not, a solid conclusion cannot be gained.

I see undamaged unmodded AI planes crashing all the time. This has been happening since day one, way back when the original IL-2 was released. (Yes, I have been playing IL-2 that long...)

Not to be mean or hurtful, but when I see an observation like the one above, it means very little to me unless there is real proof that the incident(s) was a direct result of the AI mod.

For instance, if I witnessed the modded AI crashing in the observation from above, this is what I would do. I would run the mission from the FMB. I would watch the action using the external views.

When I saw a crash, I would note the plane, time and location of the crash. I would then run the mission again several times to make sure this particular crash (or crashes) happens every time. (If you do a lot of testing, you'll know this happens a lot in IL-2. I mean, the same incidents repeat over and over again with each replay.)

Ok, so now I have a reproduceable modded AI crash. Next, I would replay the same mission, but with unmodded AI. Depending on what I observed in this particular replay, I could then make a more accurate judgement.

For instance, if I observed the same crashes with the unmodded AI, it wouldn't make sense to 'blame' the modded AI for those crashes. However, if the unmodded AI was not crashing, I would have some solid evidence that there may be a problem with the modded AI.

That being said, there may well be other factors to consider while doing such testing. However, it's a good place to start and certainly a lot better than no testing at all.

Aviar

[rockyalexander]

I am a user of this mod since inception thanks for the efforts and congratulation. Please note that the behaviour in mountain/hilly areas is still doubtful. I tried using a mission on netmountains map and majority of the plains crashed on the mountain side or on landing. I was the only mission survivor. Thanks

Well, hit me with a mission to test, and I'll be happy to adjust it if it's still messed up.

It's not because of the mod. In some of the more mountainous maps the AC would have to climb nearly straight up to avoid collision if their altitude is too low. This has always been the case. When the Slovakia map was first released it took me awhile to figure out which airfields were actually usable, due to the AC routinely crashing into mountains on takeoff or landing.